CIVILIZATION IS ABOUT SUPERIORITY, INTRINSICALLY.
Civilization: Best. Alternative: Frequent. Devolution, Followed By Extermination. To Avoid That: Nurturing Superior Thoughts.
Abstract: The Politically Correct say: Everything is relative, thus to be respected equally. Their nose twitch, their eyelids go spastic, as they mumble their nihilistic absurdity. To recover their composure, they head to the closest Chinese goods store, to look at the newest toys.
Why is China so domineering? Because today’s China is vastly superior to yesterday’s China. China is fostering civilization, while others in the West, just indulge in the drug of consumption, a variant of exploitation.
This essay is mostly a flurry of (partly) analyzed further examples around the concept of civilization, some of them Politically Incorrect, I am happy to admit.
Civilization has a reverse, devolution (in the originally biological sense of degeneration). Yet, devolution is frequent in history, so it is an obvious menace.
The most famous devolution was the Greco-Roman one, and some day sophisticated computer models wil reproduce it. In my approach, that devolution originated with deep philosophical factors, which found their culmination in the civilization-incompatible fascist Christian stupidity of the Late Empire (the historian Gibbon followed emperor Julian in denouncing Christianism as the cause of the Greco-Roman degeneracy; unfortunately, that philosopher-emperor was savagely killed during an ill conceived war in Iraq).
Greco-Roman devolution was propelled by plutocracy, tax avoidance, theocracy, and their accompanying anti-intellectualism and superstitious obscurantism.
All this, I claim, was made possible by a fundamental anti-intellectualism. In other words, Christianism was an accident waiting to happen. Anti-intellectualism made the reign of fascism and plutocracy unavoidable, and Christianism was the fruit of its disgusting entrails. Amen.
All this degeneracy has many elements in common with what is going on presently with a lot of the West, led by the plutocracy of the USA. As the reign of money in elections, and SanctorumSantorum in the hearts of the haggard demonstrate.
Just look at Afghanistan since president Carter attacked in 1979. The problem is not so much that murderous war, but the headless buffoonery covering-up the reality of what happened. Many in the West really believe that 9/11 was an aggression out of the blue by the savages, and know nothing about the west having created the savages to start with. The real problem is the loss of touch with reality; that is, fundamentally why the Greco-Roman empire went down. That, in turn, was orchestrated by the plutocratic class which had hijacked Rome (to some extent a conspiracy of happenstance, see below).
The Greco-Roman imperial devolution led to a collapse of the global economy. (The city of Rome, long the world largest urbs, went from population above a million to… just one, said a witness!)
Civilization, traditions, deconstruction, and devolution all relate with each other, sometimes constructively, sometimes destructively. Just as a biological cell is continuously deconstructing and reconstructing, if it is alive, same for civilization.
The healthy disrespect one should have for the errors of the past, and obsolete rituals is one of the engines of civilization: taking pleasure in criticizing what should not have be. Otherwise traditions, thus, the past, dominate. However the past is generally dead, because inasmuch as men may try to cling to it, ecology is always dynamic, be it only because of the pressure human techno-economy puts on it.
COLLAPSE OF GRECO-ROMANS: ALL ABOUT ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM:
Basically everything that could have gone wrong went wrong, and more, when Rome went down. A world nearly as complex as the one we have now, crashed. Dozens of reasons to explain the collapse of the empire have been suggested, from lead to Huns.
My interpretation is that the fundamental flaw was that the mental system used by the Romans was too homely to the plutocratic principle. Roman society was too cruel, too anti-intellectual, and, just so, that allowed plutocracy to take control over the democratic principle. Slavery was like an enzyme… After Spartacus’ rebellion, just on one via leading to Rome, 6,000 slaves squirmed, crucified, for all to think about. That was Roman style thinking.
An illustration is found in the philosophical triumvirate of Cicero, Caesar and Marcus Antonius. The former two, long opposed, came to appreciate each other, in the last year before Caesar’s assassination. Cicero had tirelessly fought to save the republic. Caesar had expanded it, ruthlessly. Caesar, an intellectual, and immensely talented writer, could appreciate Cicero, another intellectual, and immensely talented writer. Two giants, as gigantic as any Roman would ever be.
However, after the deed, the third one, Caesar’s chief of staff, killed Cicero, and nailed his hands to the Senate. Marcus Antonius viewed intellectuality as adverse. And not enough Romans were intellectual enough to reject Marcus-Antonius’ beastly brutality. Actually the assassins of Caesar did not have a plan, either: they were no intellectuals. This lack of a plan kept on characterizing the empire, tumbling forward for many centuries to come.
The overall anti-intellectual mood of the general Roman population made the rule of brutes, the apology of plutocracy possible, and, even, honorable. Ultimately the victory of the cult of wanting to kill the child to please the boss (Abraham), displaced the reverence for story of the babies fed by the she-wolf. The rage of the plutocrat (“God”) had displaced love for babies vanquishing natural ferocity (as the she-wolf depicts).
During the next six (!) centuries of the Roman empire, countless intellectuals were killed, for the crime of having thought too much.
In striking contrast, for the first millennium of the empire of the Franks (and successor fragments thereof: Francia, Germania, Italia, Britannia, etc.), no intellectuals were killed, for being intellectuals. One has to wait for the so-called Renaissance for the instructive spectacle of French philosophers being burned alive on top of their books (something that really happened). It’s not that the Franks were sweet to each other, far from it. No polity had so much deadly ferocity between rulers.
The most formidable of Frankish empresses, having reigned, on and off for 50 years, or so, was paraded naked on top of a camel, and tortured to death over three days. Just an example. But the Franks respected intellectuals. The Carolingians had the top philosophers as advisers, friends, or prime ministers (some coming from the British Isles, such as Erigenus and Alcuin).
Thus the Renaissance was the renaissance of… Christian horror, and burning of intellectuals and their books, after a hiatus of 1,000 years. This was a real problem, Paradoxically, this recurrence of deadly superstitious terror led to invent the concept of civilization (a notion now denied again by the uncouth).
The Romans did not have the concept of civilization, and from this absence, they died.
CIVILIZATION: THE PHOENIX BORN FROM THE WARS OF RELIGION:
Socrates said the unexamined life was not worth living. Well, the unexamined history is not worth repeating.
As I have explained, civilization is a process, an augmentation of civility. The word was coined in France, as the country came out of seven religious war in quick succession (each of these wars has a name). The French religious wars were greatly the product of foreign intervention, as Philip II of Spain, went on a rampage to control the world, using Catholic terror as an instrument. However the invention and denomination of the concept of civilization coincided with the Edict of Nantes (1598 CE) for very good reason.
France was sick and tired of religious hatred, that is why the concept of civilization was invented, and gained purchase in the next 4 centuries. A provision of the Edict even insured safety of Protestants from the Inquisition, ABROAD. So doing, French nationality superseded religious appurtenance. “This crucifies me,” protested Pope Clement VIII. Well, good, let me bring more nails.
Let’s notice in passing that the Franks already had the notion that belonging to a civilization was more important than obeying a religion: they viewed themselves not as Christians, Jews, or, for that matter, Muslims, but as “Europeans”. Thus one sees that there was a devolution in the millennium following 600 CE. In 600 CE, pretty much everybody north of the Goths in Iberia, and the Longobardi in Italy, was a Frank (even if a Jewish camel driver of Syrian origin; yes, there were camels in Francia…). However, when Europe was ravaged by religious wars in the period 1100 CE to 1700 CE, that was forgotten.
THEOCRACY AS AN INVENTION OF PLUTOCRACY:
The religious wars started top down: the emperor back in Constantinople asked for help (against the invading Turks), the Pope called for organizing a jihad (OK, 10,000 Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem had been massacred in just one assault…), and the Frankish nobles delivered. Yet the first killed by the crusading mob were German Jews.
Later the genocide against the Cathars was even more top down, as the southern populations, even when Catholic, supported the Cathars. In that case, the Pope, irked by the assassination of his fascist legate, called to the help of the French king and his nobles.
Lesson: devolution happens, and it can be engineered, top down, by the plutocrats who profits from it. The French king captured the giant County of Toulouse, which covered two-thirds of the old Roman province of Gallia Narbonensis. None of this was accidental: the Roman republican tradition was strong in Narbonensis. Catharism (the “katharos”, the “pure”, in other words, puritans), a deeply anti-Catholic, anti-plutocratic ideology was embraced in Languedoc, because people there wanted to go back to the republic. The County of Toulouse was a federal republic in disguise. (And the story did not end here, as the English, thus American parliamentary system originated in Toulouse, through Monfort!)
The Edict of Nantes was submitted to the Parlements the same year, 1598, when Philip II croaked (the Parlement of Rouen signed it only in 1609: thus parlements can block civilization, as Louis XVI would experience, 175 years later, or the 21 C Americans, every day…).
The fascist, fanatical emperor Philip II, in his forties, wrecked by cancer, could not be moved anymore, because of the pain. But emperors are made to be served, so a hole was made in his mattress, allowing him to evacuate waste he had been so keen to produce.
Meanwhile, France evacuated the fanatical spirit Philip II had done so much to foster, and decided to enjoy civilization instead. Henri IV, the “green gallant“, who had never seen a girl he did not like all too much, between two assassination attempts, promised a chicken in every pot, once a week, and ordered his main war marshal to order the economy around, just as he ordered armies before.
The Duc de Sully proceeded with an economic stimulus program of national industrialization, a distant transmogrified descendant of the one decided by Athens’ National assembly in 489 CE, when she equipped herself with a 200 trireme war fleet (ravaging the ecology of Attica in the process). Rome imitated Athens during her wars with Carthage, thereafter enjoying the fruit of military-industrial complex for 7 centuries thereafter. Similarly the Italian republics of the Middle Ages financed their armies with creative financial engineering, mixing lending, plutocracy, and the military in semi harmonious wholes (complete with the occasional default).
However, what was new with Sully and Henri IV, which had never been done before, is that, to go with the brand new concept of civilization, came the concept of deliberately engineering the economy to profit the people, top down. (The New Deal of Roosevelt was a direct imitation of Henri IV, complete with the chicken in every pot…)
It would take two more generations for France to defeat Spain completely, somewhere in Germany, meanwhile creating the independent Netherlands. (Not that the Dutch were grateful; as the typical teenager who turns against the parent, the Netherlands, tried very hard to compete with France, after conquering England!)
Philip II, by the way, was the son of the French born, and highly philosophical Charles V. This demonstrates the ravaging influence of terroristic mental systems: as the son of Charles was exposed to the mood of the Inquisition, he became its most fervent promoter, even launching entire armadas to massacre the French colonies in the Carolinas. (Or why Americans don’t speak French!)
Philip’s father, Charles, obviously had less influence on him than the mood of Catholic terror which gripped Spain (and would subsequently make this most advanced civilization sputter for centuries, all the way into the intervention of the church into the war against the republic which started in 1936).
It’s no accident that plutocratization augments in collaboration with superstition and the disintegration of civilization. As happened when the Greco-Roman empire disintegrated just as a space shuttle with a hole in its heat shield, going way too fast loses pieces here and there, before completely dislocating.
RELIGION THERE IS ALWAYS, AND BREAKING IT DOWN, HEALTHY:
The question of the nature of the gods is intimately tied to the question of what is meant by being “intelligent”.
Socrates was tried, in part, for having offended the gods, a capital offense, just as in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamist republic nowadays.
Basically Socrates found the Athenian state, and its gods, stupid, and reciprocally. In the end, the offense-of-the-gods charge was dropped, and Socrates was condemned to death on the more relevant charge of “corrupting the youth.”
Indeed, many of Socrates students, lovers and boyfriends played the most prominent role in the defeat of Athens, and ruled the city-state as dictators, after throwing out democracy.
Denigrating stupid and vicious mental systems is an absolute good. This is how civilization progresses, for the best: by autophagy of obsolete structures.
It turns out that exercise activates autophagy in cells, and thus they get rid of broken organelles and old components, getting younger and more performing. See: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/exercise-cells-biologically-young/story?id=9211419 (Initially Italian research confirmed in other places, such as Texas).
The progression of civilization is not just an absolute good, it’s an absolute necessity. Just as the inner components of cells decay in time, so does any socio-economy. As the genus Homo modifies the environment, ravaging what was, the behavior of Homo has to change, and become more subtle in the understanding of nature it encompasses.
An excellent example: the Mayan civilization. The environment changed, in great part because of the impact of Mayan civilization. We know the Mayas ran out of their main construction wood, having destroyed the resource. This made much expensive the upkeep of their civilization. And then there was a long drought (minus 25% or 40%). At this point, we do not know if the drought was induced in part by the Mayas themselves. However, I would dare say that seems likely, and an obvious mechanism would have been deforestation (which we know happen, from the disappearance of the main construction wood).
Some will scoff, and suggest I come down from my big Mayan horse. However it has been suggested that the climate warmed up, at the end of the neolithic through a human induced greenhouse, from too much methane scatologically emanating from the august derrieres of millions of cattle, which would have been otherwise eaten by lions, had Homo Sapiens not been around…
If that is confirmed, the drought of the Middle Earth emanated from human agents, and then so does the apparition of the hydraulic dictatorships, and then, ultimately the terribly dictatorial and divisive Abrahamist religion, and its various sects. (Reminder: two of the variants of Abrahamism, the Israeli and Iranian one are busy proposing us to join them in a nuclear war, at this point, because they have the same nasty god.)
NO GOOD WITHOUT EVIL:
Good cannot take out evil. Saint Francis of Assisi talked nicely to birds, but he could not have talked to Hitler, or, for that matter, to so called “Saint” Louis, and steer them away from evil. Only a better, stronger evil can take out more weaker, more stupid, obsolete evil.
In World War Two, 80 millions crazed out Germans were taught the correct philosophy by heavy bombing of their cities. Kant was no help, just the opposite.
By the way, the question often comes up of whether religion is restricted to those who admire Abraham for accepting to kill a child. But German nationalism, just as Stalinism, were religions too. I would refute, though that Nazism and Stalinism were “secular” religions, because secularism means living in one’s age, and returning to tribalism, as Nazism had it, was several millennia off.
And why was Stalinism not secular, either?
Simply because it denied democracy. Just denying the private possession of capital, and reserving it to the state, is a denial of democracy. (Of course Stalin’s violations of democracy went much further than that, and included the denial of justice and life!)
Tribalism has been long denied, as it should be. The Greco-Roman world, and its associated Celto-German and Goth-Scythian worlds constituted an enormous globalization involving the Mediterranean world and Western Europe.
The Greco-Romano-Celto-German globalization, 21 centuries ago, was first an optimal economic area. Expensive Roman wine was exchanged for slaves 9among other things). As an author laughed then, a Roman could get a servant in Gaul, for a drink!
Excahnges made Northern Europe so rich that it covered itself with what Caesar called “opida”, cities, often fortified mountain tops, where commerce and industry were conducted (some had more than 7 kilometers of ramparts; as they were built in wood, nowadays only the earthworks are left).
Denigrating religions which abuse, and sexually torture children has always been an absolute good. And a long tradition of the West. It was the main moral argument, and, thus, the main military strength, of the Romans versus Carthage. The Romans occupied the moral heights, thus Carthage was defeated.
When Muhammad preached what Allah told him, many of his orders had to do with treating girls better than they had been in the savage Arabian deserts: don’t kill them after birth, and if captured, don’t hesitate to make love to them, instead of treating them only as slaves to be sold. Thus spoke Muhammad. That superior moral position, one of many in Islam, made the Arabs righteous, hence hard to beat (especially as Christianity had made the Romans soft in the head, as Hitler pointed out! Now that I have quoted Hitler favorably, I am going to work harder to find something positive to say about Santorum…).
By denigrating and destroying religions which promoted the killing of children, civilization has progressed, for the best. The Romans used absolute, total war, killing a large part of the Carthaginian and Celtic population to do so. The descendants of the massacred faithful of the Punic and Celtic religion agreed with the Romans, though.
The sexual torture of children by mutilating their sexual parts is itself part of a brutalization of man by man, a preliminary to war. If you want brutal warriors, brutalize them as children. The Incas compressed the brains of their future super fighters, as children, to turn them into robotic brutes.
OF THE DIRTY PRIMITIVISM OF SOME ABRAHAMIST SECTS:
Recently it came to light that most French slaughterhouses practiced the ritual killing of animals according to Judaism and its parrot, Islamism. That method consists in cutting the throat of the animal, ear to ear, slicing open both the windpipe and the esophagus. As a dedicated butcher, the god of Abraham, pays attention to spill as much blood as possible, so the animal is alive, as its heart pumps blood out of the enormous opening in its throat.
A problem of course is that the bacteria in the gut of the animal spill with the blood, as the animal, apparently disgusted by the torture ordered by god, tends to throw up (just like Santorum, but to throw up, Santorum needs just to read president Kennedy).
To avoid the mixing of bacteria with the meat, the European Union has a strict procedure:
1) The animal is stunned, by being hit on the head with a spring loaded hammer.
2) The unconscious animal is hung by the hind legs, and two small incisions are made in the jugular veins and carotids, through which blood drains. Meanwhile, the lower esophagus is exposed and tied up tight by an elastic, preventing the content of the rumen to be vomited out.
3) The still unconscious animal dies, its rumen tied off. The viscera, full of bacteria, are evacuated, still intact in their pouches, after being further tied off. Great attention is paid to not poke through them.
Thus, the Halal (= “lawful“) and Kosher method, by mixing animal vomit with meat, is intrinsically unhygienic.
Another point is that torturing to death conscious animals is against European Union law. However, some religious ritual killings are allowed. All I can say, is that we are lucky that the Aztecs were defeated, and do not have nuclear weapons, as the Jews do. otherwise the ritual killing of terrorists would happen on the great pyramid, according to the sacred religious ritual of tearing their hearts out, and presenting it to the sacrificial victim.
The French Prime Minister, Fillon, pointed out that “we are in a modern country, there are traditions which are ancestral traditions, which do not correspond to much anymore, whereas in the past they corresponded to hygiene problems… One could think about it.” This is a word for word translation faithful to what he said and not the biased transliterations seen in places such as the Jerusalem Post.
Hearing that, the ritualists went ballistic.
France harbors the largest ritualist communities of Jews (600,000) and Muslims (millions). Most people of Jewish and Muslim descent in France, are, of course practicing the national religion of France, secularism (“laïcité“, with arguing replacing praying, many times an hour), arguing character).
Some will say: let them be, let’s be tolerant…
TOLERANCE, BY DEFINITION, HAS LIMITS:
But tolerance is just that, no more. In Latin, it means to endure, to bear… Moreover, flouting one’s weird non secular quirks can definitively backfire, when they are in minority.
There is no doubt that, should the Jews not have practiced circumcision, it would have been much harder for the Nazis to catch them. Flouting one’s superstition for all to see can clearly make one into a target. In the Netherlands the Jews were registered, so more than 95% were exterminated (about 120,000 in absolute numbers). In France, it is against the law to register people according to the sect they may, or not belong to. Conclusion: only a small minority, mostly foreign Jews were killed by the Nazis in France (only 75,000 assassinated out of may be a million, between French Jews and refugee Jews who the USA had rejected).
And what I am saying has a very practical consequence: Israel would be well advised to not be too arrogant and loudly visible… As an attack against Iran would surely make it. I say this as a friend of democratic Israel (should there be such a thing), and someone who would surely would remove the Iranian theocracy in a puff of smoke, were I a fairy.
FLAUNTING ONE’S DIFFERENCE IS NOT INNOCENT, WHEN IT HAS A TRIBAL CHARACTER:
In an apparently completely different note, one learns a lot from details. After a Very High Speed train crash, the minister of transport was photographed on the crash site with a hyper expensive Swiss watch. Then a blogger found that most “People” Republic of China officials had Cartier $6500 or Rolex $13000 watches, and the like. Authorities promptly closed the offending site. Right now one expensive Swiss watch out of two is sold in the PRC.
What’s the connection with sexual mutilations of children? Symbols. People wear ultra expensive watches to flaunt their power, their success, to other plutocrats, or the lower rabble. Doing so makes power, or even plutocracy honorable. That is why nobles in Europe around 1500 CE wore immensely expensive clothing (sometimes worth many millions).
Flaunting riches just does not say: we have it, and you do not, but also: it’s good that some have it all, and the others who have nearly nothing.
Similarly, circumcision and other tribal scars and mutilations say: we belong to such and such elected people, and you don’t. Not nice, and it can backfire. After the Arabs took control of half of the Roman empire, and all of Persia, they requested Jews and Christian to wear marks on their clothing, as befitted lower beings. From discriminating against to being treated as a vermin, there is just more of the same…
Human beings are super chimpanzees. Chimpanzees know very well that they have mostly one enemy, and that is the next group of chimps, over there. They hate them nearly as much as they hate leopards. Man has long known the same, and it’s all over human culture. It’s actually the main message of the Bible. Man has mostly one enemy, and that enemy belongs to the other tribe, whatever the other tribe is. Thus, any tribal signal is potentially offensive.
TRADITIONS AS RESERVOIRS OF TRIBAL VIOLENCE:
Collectivities may or may not have civilization (the process of becoming more civil), but they always have traditions, and even libraries of traditions. As tribal aspects dominate traditions, those libraries are not innocent.
Let me give an example. In the 1930s Thousands of Egyptian women could be observed bathing on the beaches with scant clothing. Egypt was then occupied by the fierce British imperialists, imposing the female flesh onto the Believers, who did not believe that much anymore. Fast forward 80 years and now Egyptian TV channels have been colonized by the money of the theocratic plutocrats of Saudi Arabia, who have a vital interest to turn Egypt into an extension of their vast realm. So now one can observe there people who look exactly like bin Laden reading the news. Their Arabic dress has nothing to do with Egyptian tradition, but everything to do with Saudi tradition.
Meanwhile many Egyptian women are covered with tents, and those who do not, tend to get attacked, much more than they used to. Sexism on the march, and Aisha, a strong anti-sexist and partisan of a “secular Caliphate”, both an adversary of Uthman (Third Caliph) and a general fighting step-son Ali (Fourth Caliph) would say: “I told you so!”.
One often hear that all civilizations are equivalent, but not rarely hear that all devolutions are equivalent.
Moods can become traditions. So it’s important to combat those moods camping as traditions. One case was the slave trade, which founded many a fortune in the Americas, and Europe. It’s justly condemned, and assuredly does not have too many partisans… in the Americas and Europe. Yet, one has forgotten an important aspect of it: the European traders who acquired the slaves did not hunt them in Africa. Africans hunted Africans to enslave them.
This is important, because the moods and traditions that made slavery such an important aspect of the African socio-economy have not been explored, as it has been taken for granted that Americans and Europeans were responsible for the enslavement of Africans, and it is Politically Correct to sing song about the lack of civilization of Europe. Whereas the problem was just an aspect of plutocracy, not Eurocracy.
As African traditions were left, unexamined, some of them have festered anew, especially after European imperial control was removed (so called “decolonization”, a funny word, since most African countries did not have European “colons”, in the technical sense of the Latin “coloni”). Recently, though, some people of African descent, genetic or cultural, such as yours truly, have become aware of the problem with the hypocritical whining of all too many black men.
Verily, the cure for hypocrisy is hypercrisy. Instead of criticizing less (“hypo”) than deserved, one criticizes more (“Hyper“) than deserved. That’s what philosophers do.
AMERICAN GENOCIDE AS CRIMINAL IMPERIUM, UNEXAMINED
An example of national hypocrisy was the massacre of American natives by the American government after the Secession War. Gold in the Black Hills of dakota had been found, after the california gold rush had exhausted itself. At some point, before the famous battle of Little Big Horn, no less than four American generals heading four American armies converged on innocent Indian populations (one of them being the famously flamboyant general Custer). The goal was to kill them.
An example was the Nez Perce’. They had never killed anybody, but an American army chased men, women and children for weeks in the mountainous wilderness, before cornering them, after a pursuit of 2,000 kilometers, in the Bears Paw Mountains, 40 kilometers away from safety in Canada, and massacring them. Survivors were imprisoned. A New York Times editorial at the time (1877 CE) condemned the aggression: “On our part, the war was in its origin and motive nothing short of a gigantic blunder and a crime.”
The fundamental reason for such massacres was the will from Washington to impose its imperium (To use the appropriate terminology, which is Roman)… But what for? Pure rapine. There was no fig leaf, as when Caesar intervened in Gaul because the Helvetii had decided to migrate en masse to South West Gaul (58 BCE).
EXAMINING DETAILED MOTIVATIONS FOR ABOMINATION:
Americans have failed to examine carefully the connection between rapine and Imperium in the USA. Let me explain with a further comparison. The devil is in the details. The abomination is in the motivation.
Napoleon was a grotesque dictator, who, like his nephew later, stole the republic to satisfy his ridiculous ambition, of the sort one associates with a toddler who wants if all, whatever it is. His attempt to re-enslave Haiti was deeply against the spirit of 1789, and inhumanly retrograde.
However, Napoleon’s career started following the blossoming of his military genius after an aggression of various plutocrats, Prussian, English and Austrian against the French republic.
So French Imperium in the revolutionary wars started as a defense mechanism. When that defense became imperial in nature, the true Jesus of our civilization, Sade warned against it. Sade was right, but it is understandable when a defense turns into an offense.
What is troubling in the American case is that naked aggression of the genocidal type was committed in the name of the exploitation principle. And, because it has not been harshly criticized at the institutional level, that mood has been left unscathed. It was fully in evidence in the aggressions against Afghanistan (1979 and earlier, covertly), or Iraq (1990s and after 2003).
Imperium meant absolute command and control, all the way to the death penalty, police, judge and executioner in one, the consular way, the modern application of which has been defended by the French republic (remember the French ultimatum to Hitler, September1, 1939). The imprium is now the doctrine of the government of the USA, as Attorney General Holder just explained.
The Romans distinguished Romanitas and Imperium; the technical deliquescence of the empire occurred when, greatly due to the hypocritical Christian terror, the Imperium was outsourced to Goths and Germans.
Ultimately, the civilization of the West survived because the Franks grabbed the Imperium principle, and applied it to the Goths, the Alemanni, the Angli and Saxons, the Pope and his fanatics, the Longobardi, the Muslims, the Avars, the Vikings, etc.
There is little doubt that (co-)emperor Commodus dropped the imperium ball when he succeeded his father Marcus Aurelius.
OK, fast forward to the Afghan war, started by the USA officially on July 3, 1979… The reason why Europeans such as the French are skeptical about the Afghan war has to do with the fact that they drew more careful and thorough notions about past wars.
Imperium is crucial, but it has to be applied well. It was criminal against the Nez Perce’, and it is criminal in Afghanistan, but it was appropriate in Libya, or Ivory Coast. It was also entirely appropriate to chase the Ottoman empire out of most of the Middle East and North Africa, from Iraq to Arabia, all the way to Algeria. Why?
NO EMPIRE, NO CIVILIZATION:
Empires are serious things. The Alemanni had invaded the hard-to-defend gap in the Roman Limes between the Rhine and the Danube. They suffered several defeats at the hands of Roman emperors, the last by Gratianus (which gave the name Gratianopolis, hence the modern city of “Grenoble“). A century later, imperator Clovis conquered the Alemanni in 496 CE.
In 746, the Caroligian king Carloman (de facto co-emperor of the Occidental Roman empire) ended an uprising by summarily executing all Alemannic nobility at the blood court at Cannstatt. He was using the same imperator characteristic of Roman consuls, French presidents, and now Obama…The Alemanni, “Alles Men”, in French: Allemands, never tried that trick again for 1,000 years! In the following century, Alamannia was ruled by Frankish dukes, before being solidly melded in the tripartite arrangement of the treaty of Verdun (843 CE).
That does not mean that it is sufficient to establish an empire to establish a civilization, as the Mongols demonstrated more than once (on the third attempt, Ginghis Khan did introduce elements of more advanced civilization, such as free trade of goods, men and ideas, and superstitious freedom, Mongol-Nestorian inspired; on the fourth try, the Mongols used their version of Islam: they had discovered that empire worked best, if connected to a civilization, not just an army).
The Ottoman empire blocked not just printing, but civilization itself, although blocking printing was a big part of blocking civilization.
Revealingly, the “Thousand And One Night” were published in Paris first, and so was a lot of what has become the “Orientalist” cultural framework. Paradoxically, France defended better some of the old traditions of middle earth as a cultural heritage (after all, that is what Rome was expert at doing: not very strong intellectually on their own, the Romans, like the Arabs later, gleaned what they could.)
Brutalizing rituals, such as sexual mutilations of male and female children and the subjugation of women, can, and ought, to be the object of secular jihad. Freeing the women, that’s also freeing the children they educate, and the men some of them will grow into.
It turns out that by the age of six months, babies understand a tremendous amount of language. Unborn babies even learn to distinguish languages. Thus the argument of desert dweller that women ought to educate children until age seven, and then men take over their sons’ upbringing, is conducive to devolution. Obviously dumb mothers will educate children to be stupid too. Uneducated, sequestered, enfeebled women cannot be as brainy as if they were fully endowed with all capabilities, as both logic and experiences on rats demonstrate.
Making women into morons was clearly antinomic to Muhammad’s life and opinions. However it was imposed by Uthman and his ilk. Maybe instead of Mohammedans , one should talk about Uthmanists?
There is no civilization without a careful examination of the situation. it’s not just, as Socrates said, that the unexamined life is not worth living. It is that the unexamined life calls for extermination.
One of the better example of that is the manipulation of minds that the fossil fuel plutocracy has engineered in the USA, thanks to exerting enormous money, that is power, to bend the spirits in the way the wanted.
The result, of course, is a gigantic amount of “fracking“. anybody who studied a bit the Roman empire would know that this is a mistake. OK, the Romans did not burn fossil fuels for energy, but they made equivalent mistakes… Mistakes that the Europeans (or, as the Muslims, said, the Franks) exerted deadly force not to make during the Middle Ages’ ecological crisis.
The Europeans compared what they had before to what they had now, and compared that to what they ought to have, and what they could do, and what it would bring. The most basic industry, the one that made warmth, cooking and construction possible, was blocked where it was necessary to spare nature the ravages of man. Civilization was saved. It is all the more remarkable since very bad wars soon occurred, plus the Black Plague, and a massive depopulation (the sort of combination of factors that many feel brought down the Greco-Romans).
Yet, the European Middle Age civilization did not miss a beat, and ket on civilizing itself at an accelerated pace. Why? Because the principles of comparing and civilizing were in command of European culture (the Inquisition tried its migthiest to stop that, but those efforts were crushed by the armed forces of the English and French sovereigns, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and the French Henris being most prominent that way).
Compare, then civilize. The modern variant of the oldest definition of the genus Homo: I compare, therefore I think.